Subject: [Capwap] MIB drafts status & advancement

From: "Mani, Mahalingam (Mani)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:47:06 -0700

The MIB drafts have undergone one more round of WGLC.
There have been next to nil responses/comments. Exceptions (among the ones that triggered this revision and this WGLC) have been, besides AD's copious comments, review comments from Abhijit resulting in resolving a base spec erratum.

No further formal reviews are noted - especially in comparsion for coverage and consistency against the base and 802.11binding specs.

Does the WG believe that:

1. the review is sufficient to further this as a standards track document (yes/no)?
2. these MIB drafts should become standards track documents (yes/no)? Earlier decisions (yes) have what led us 
    down the stds. track hitherto. Yet - in light of the current level of WG involvement - we have been asked to ask 
    this question again.
3. Does the WG believe we should, if answer to (1) is no, that the MIB drafts should be informational? (yes/no)

Thanks,
-mani
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:48:39 +0200

About #1 speaking as an AD, I cannot consider the level of review that
these documents went through sufficient. If my information is correct,
the WG chairs had a hard time getting confirmation that even the authors
of the CAPWAP protocol RFC have reviewed the MIB document. In such
conditions and unless the situation changes my recommendation is to
publish the documents as Informational, and conclude the WG without
meeting the charter objective of developing standard track MIB modules
(or other management interfaces). 
 
Dan

________________________________

	From: Mani, Mahalingam (Mani) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 2:47 AM
	To: [email-masked]
	Subject: [Capwap] MIB drafts status & advancement

	 The MIB drafts have undergone one more round of WGLC.
	There have been next to nil responses/comments. Exceptions
(among the ones that triggered this revision and this WGLC) have been,
besides AD's copious comments, review comments from Abhijit resulting in
resolving a base spec erratum.
	 
	No further formal reviews are noted - especially in comparsion
for coverage and consistency against the base and 802.11binding specs.

	1. the review is sufficient to further this as a standards track
document (yes/no)?
	2. these MIB drafts should become standards track documents
(yes/no)? Earlier decisions (yes) have what led us 
	    down the stds. track hitherto. Yet - in light of the current
level of WG involvement - we have been asked to ask 
	    this question again.
	3. Does the WG believe we should, if answer to (1) is no, that
the MIB drafts should be informational? (yes/no)
	 
	Thanks,
	-mani

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:07:22 -0400

Hi Dan,

On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:48 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

> About #1 speaking as an AD, I cannot consider the level of review  
> that these documents went through sufficient. If my information is  
> correct, the WG chairs had a hard time getting confirmation that  
> even the authors of the CAPWAP protocol RFC have reviewed the MIB  
> document.

I have confirmed that none of the CAPWAP protocol authors have  
reviewed these MIBs.

> In such conditions and unless the situation changes my  
> recommendation is to publish the documents as Informational, and  
> conclude the WG without meeting the charter objective of developing  
> standard track MIB modules (or other management interfaces).

I agree with you that the review has not been adequate for a PS  
document.  Perhaps as an alternative to moving forward as an  
informational document, we could make a request on the list for  
additional review?  If there are CAPWAP implementers who are willing  
to review the MIBs, for instance, they would be (IMO) as likely to  
find the types of issues you are concerned about as the RFC authors...

Perhaps we could make a two-week call on the list for folks to state  
that they have carefully reviewed the documents?  They could either  
send whatever issues they find to the list or state that they support  
publication, as written.   If we get sufficient review in the next two  
weeks, we could resolve any issues found and submit these for  
publication as standards-track RFCs.  Otherwise, we could fall back to  
informational.

Does that make sense?  Does anyone have any problems with that plan?

Margaret

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:11:49 +0200

Hi Margaret,

I have no problem with what you propose and I certainly prefer that the
charter be completed. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 4:07 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: Mani, Mahalingam (Mani); [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Capwap] MIB drafts status & advancement
> 
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> > the WG chairs had a hard time getting confirmation that even the 
> > authors of the CAPWAP protocol RFC have reviewed the MIB document.
> 
> I have confirmed that none of the CAPWAP protocol authors 
> have reviewed these MIBs.
> 
> recommendation 
> > is to publish the documents as Informational, and conclude the WG 
> > without meeting the charter objective of developing 
> standard track MIB 
> > modules (or other management interfaces).
> 
> I agree with you that the review has not been adequate for a 
> PS document.  Perhaps as an alternative to moving forward as 
> an informational document, we could make a request on the 
> list for additional review?  If there are CAPWAP implementers 
> who are willing to review the MIBs, for instance, they would 
> be (IMO) as likely to find the types of issues you are 
> concerned about as the RFC authors...
> 
> Perhaps we could make a two-week call on the list for folks 
> to state that they have carefully reviewed the documents?  
> They could either send whatever issues they find to the list 
> or state that they support  
> publication as standards-track RFCs.  Otherwise, we could 
> fall back to informational.
>